Ian-T
Veteran
True Dat!! I’ve Bin Sayin this Like ….4 Evah!!
the last episode of the shootout!!
- Thread starter ramdop
- Start date
- Status
True Dat!! I’ve Bin Sayin this Like ….4 Evah!!
Crimson_Fluid
Active member
Yeah I think that was Shane Hurlbut. I also thought that the 7D comment was not a fair comment to make. I understand he uses the 5D only but geez I actually thought the 7D looked just as good or better. Maybe he just didn't want to admit it.
kodjo
Active member
Grain is not an artistic thing? Ha ha ha ha ha!!!! Are you kidding? What planet are you on? Do you seriously believe the objective of good cinematography is to remove grain? It is just the opposite. Film speaks to your subconscious. Certain directors of photography will choose to film in 16 just to get that filmic grainy look. As I said before: some people should have gone to film school.
And by the way, if film were projected at, say 30 or 60 frames per second it would look like video. Yet one could argue that from a technical standpoint the more frames the better. Things don't work on in reality the way it looks on paper. There are a few thousand films schools in the United States. It's not too late.
And by the way, if film were projected at, say 30 or 60 frames per second it would look like video. Yet one could argue that from a technical standpoint the more frames the better. Things don't work on in reality the way it looks on paper. There are a few thousand films schools in the United States. It's not too late.
you think grain is good because there was grain in film
you think 24 fps is better than any other frame rate because film was 24fps, if it was 48 then you would have said the standard is the best if it was 18, you would have said 18.
if you only do stuff the way you were told, not thinking about it... that is just sad.
you think 24 fps is better than any other frame rate because film was 24fps, if it was 48 then you would have said the standard is the best if it was 18, you would have said 18.
if you only do stuff the way you were told, not thinking about it... that is just sad.
lets get back to topic guyz )
its like 7 pages of this now
the most interesting thing to me in this episode was the nikon at high iso
im not sure how the D3s works but i cant get footage like this with d5000, anything above 800iso is very noisy, but i dont have any manual control.
also the only thing people seems to wait for is raw, and i guess it wont be too long since we get it, right ?
now imagine a nikon with that high iso quality and raw.
its like 7 pages of this now
the most interesting thing to me in this episode was the nikon at high iso
im not sure how the D3s works but i cant get footage like this with d5000, anything above 800iso is very noisy, but i dont have any manual control.
also the only thing people seems to wait for is raw, and i guess it wont be too long since we get it, right ?
now imagine a nikon with that high iso quality and raw.
Ian-T
Veteran
Good point Amr.
Me….I think grain has “become” an artistic choice for some but a nuisance for others like myself. I like it clean..or better yet the ability to shoot images “clean” and then dirty it up (if I want) in post. I understand it doesn’t quite end up looking the same (like how folks use plug-ins to try and make their audio CDs sound as warm and round like Vinyl records) but at least I have a choice to go in any direction I want during post work.
kodjo
Active member
The point is that adaptors emulate film better than DSLR. Now discussing the reasons certain fashions and tates have imposed themselves over time is another debate. What we associate with film is DOF, 24fr/sec, wide contrat and grain. On the last two points adaptors have a clear advantage.
you cant even see grain on dvds and their SD resolution,so ?
The point is there is no tournament between adapters and DSLR's but you really want to make one,i dont get why ? I like adapters and DSLR's footage,i think youre just this type of person who doesnt like when people overhype and they do that a lot with DSLR's ,but its just how it is,you wont change the world,live with it ,adapters are good but slower to work with and they tend to fail from time to time because of ground glass,lowlight problems... but so what ? Use them if you like them,DSLR's have their own problems too but so what ? Use them if you like them.
Did you actually tried to shoot with DSLRs ? New ones with 24p ?
The point is there is no tournament between adapters and DSLR's but you really want to make one,i dont get why ? I like adapters and DSLR's footage,i think youre just this type of person who doesnt like when people overhype and they do that a lot with DSLR's ,but its just how it is,you wont change the world,live with it ,adapters are good but slower to work with and they tend to fail from time to time because of ground glass,lowlight problems... but so what ? Use them if you like them,DSLR's have their own problems too but so what ? Use them if you like them.
Did you actually tried to shoot with DSLRs ? New ones with 24p ?
Finnegan
Well-known member
You've consistently made broad, blanket statements like these without ever pointing to hard evidence to support the claim. I don't even have to go back to your previous posts; I believe I was pretty clear with my stance on those issues, and I think most people agree with me. However this point you are making about adapters emulating the feel of film better than a DSLR is merely an opinion unless you provide evidence.
As a cinematographer (and yes, before you pretentiously recommend film school to me, I went) I don't believe the aesthetic of an adapter is comparable to the aesthetic of a DSLR. Most cameramen know that the amount of image control and manipulatability is vastly superior on an HD camcorder, like an EX1 or an EX3. And that's simply because they're purpose built machines, while HDSLRs are not. It'd be unfair to expect the same features and control of an HDSLR system. However, my point has always been that the aesthetics are similar enough to 35mm film, not better, that the average person would not notice the difference. Thus, if you buy that the idea of Hollywood is to make money, then saving production costs on the backend will in the long run save you money when it finally gets distributed.
In film school terms, since maybe you'll relate to that better: if 98% of your demographic audience can't tell the difference between a hugely expensive camera, an even more expensive telecine/digital intermediate process, and proper color grading from a $3,000 HDSLR system, then for what business purpose is there for going with the former?
Aesthetics aside, HDSLR systems are growing rapidly in most corners of the media industry. Clearly, people think the image that HDSLRs offer is fine for their practical applications, and in some cases people think it's fine for their professional applications as well. Would you be willing to tell all those ASC guys at the Zacuto test that you think they're wrong about their opinions on HDSLRs, and that they should try adapters instead? Again, going back to supporting your claims with evidence...I think the one piece of evidence that stands out clearly in this argument is the inclusion of HDSLRs in the professional world, when adapters have made no such stride. You can argue for the aesthetics of adapters all you want, but in the end, not one professional filmmaker that I know of has ever chosen an adapter combination for a professional product made to be distributed.
. There are a few thousand films schools in the United States. It's not too late.
Let's get off our film school high horse shall we?
-Tarantino was a high school dropout and never went to film school.
-James Cameron never went to film school
-Steven Spielberg was rejected by USC film and never went.
-Stanley Kubrick never went to film school.
-Ron Howard never went to film school.
-Orson Welles never went to film school and was voted the greatest director of all time (In 2002 he was voted the greatest film director of all time in theBritish Film Institute poll of Top Ten Directors)
-Robert Rodriguez was to stupid to go to film school (rejected because of low grades)
Do you really want to keep going down this road?
I could spend 200K going to NYU or spend that same amount or much less in a different direction, and I bet would come out much closer to my goal being self educated and getting experience. If your driven, self educate and gain experience, nothing will stop you unless of course there is just a lack of talent and nothing can rectify that handicap unless you're Ed Wood.
Last edited:
Ooops... some people here never went to film school.
I take no sure stance on the debate at hand other than each camera has its place, and so the image that they produce. Given the chance to shoot a better format, where better is defined as TECHNICALLY SUPERIOR--something that cannot be argued by artistic choice or "good enough"--I believe everyone here would choose to do so, and even force it to fit in every circumstance that another camera may be better for.
See: Fitting 16mm Bolex into a tight corner versus just shooting with a DSLR.
What I will say is that you should post your work and show us how much film school helped you.
Indeed, a number of us haven't gone or could benefit from it, surely you don't imply that simply because one ATTENDS (and is fortunate enough to do so) makes them understand anything on a greater level than the practiced and diligently self-taught individual.
Barring citing simple examples, your work speaks louder than a paper-based proclamation of attendance and/or graduation.
Post links to your work, join the community as a peer... as this is where you are, not film school.
Ooops... some people here never went to film school.
Please refrain from the sweeping blanket statements and the condescending tone towards other users. There is a respectful way to debate without putting others down. You were sent a PM from another moderator and if this behavior doesn't change immediately you're not going to last long here. You are ruffling feathers. I'm allergic to feathers.
And reacquaint yourself with the forum guidelines.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=98521
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=185426
kodjo
Active member
What is the difference between an opinion and a blanket statement? Is one not allowed to have an opinion? If in fact some people feel my opinions are nonesense then why should they get offended by my nonsense? The fact is this debate has stirred off into a debate on film. These debates have no objective answer and therefore anything we say must be opinion and opinion is alwas a blanket statement.
Initially the debate was about why Zacuto did not include adaptors. Then in turned into a debate on film, and finally into a debate on the merits of film school. Opinions were given. No personal attacks were made. No swear words were used.
Neither of these topics is controversial or offensive. The reference to film school is clearly a matter of opinion as some have pointed out. So could somebody explain why a moderator feels he has to intervene? Do we need a babysitter or are we adults able to push a conversation into any direction? If I get censored then that means some blanket statements are more blankety than others. It would also mean the freedom of discussing anything is withdrawn. I'm against censorship. .
Initially the debate was about why Zacuto did not include adaptors. Then in turned into a debate on film, and finally into a debate on the merits of film school. Opinions were given. No personal attacks were made. No swear words were used.
Neither of these topics is controversial or offensive. The reference to film school is clearly a matter of opinion as some have pointed out. So could somebody explain why a moderator feels he has to intervene? Do we need a babysitter or are we adults able to push a conversation into any direction? If I get censored then that means some blanket statements are more blankety than others. It would also mean the freedom of discussing anything is withdrawn. I'm against censorship. .
Finnegan
Well-known member
Opinions are personal attitudes, beliefs, or judgments. You are free to express them, as is everyone, given that they fall within the guidelines of this forum. A blanket statement, as you should be aware, is a broad, encompassing statement that makes an assumption about the entirety of a subject and negates other assumptions, hypotheses, or theories. And the two are not mutually exclusive, as you suggested. Opinions are not necessarily blanket statements, and vice versa.
A moderator intervened because numerous times in your posts, whether you realize it or not, you spoke extremely condescendingly to different people who voiced their opinions, and that is against the rules of this forum. You are free to voice your opinion, to cite the facts that support it, and to disagree with other people. But you must do so respectfully. You can add all the little smiley faces you want to your paragraphs, but it does not lighten what you are implying (and in many cases, not just implying but also pretty clearly stating) that essentially "if you didn't go to film school, your opinion doesn't matter".
We all exist here as peers, and in many cases friends. This community exists to broaden the knowledge of media and as a resource for users of all levels. No one wants to be belittled, especially when the source of your belittlement of them (film school) is not considered a standard in the film industry.
BobBlankemeier
Active member
I would have really liked to see some red footage mixed in there. It is huge debate whether to go 5d/7d or red for me recently. Film is still ahead of the game and will always hold its aesthetic beauty.
Barry_Green
Moderator
The purpose of this forum is to share information and assist other users.
It is not the purpose or intention of this forum to be used as a soapbox from which users spout opinions. The internet's an awfully big place, if someone doesn't want to participate here but instead just really really wants a place to proclaim their opinions, we can suggest tens of thousands of other places to do it.
If posts aren't along the lines of helping, assisting, guiding, informing (with information, not just opinion) or at least entertaining, then -- why are they here?
If the whole purpose of one's post is to demand "free speech" and "decry censorship" and that "their opinion be heard", then the odds of it actually contributing valuable information and substance to the community is pretty low. You do have absolute freedom of speech -- just speak it somewhere where people want to hear it. Our forum is not anybody's soapbox from which they can rain down proclamations, and then when we try to sort it out, they then hide behind claims of "free speech" and "censorship".
As moderators, it is our job to moderate discussions and keep them reasonably on track. We view the job of moderating as akin to the job of a gardener -- to have a beautiful garden, you occasionally have to prune. And sometimes you have to pull weeds. If you don't take these steps, your garden will be overrun by weeds.
We happen to think DVXUser is a pretty lovely garden, and we intend to continue to maintain it in that state.
If that offends anyone or their sensibilities, we invite you to find some other community to join, because you do indeed have your freedom, you can "vote with your feet." But as for us here, we will continue to try to make this the most friendly, helpful, informative, supportive, vital, lively, entertaining, and useful discussion community on the internet, by and for filmmakers and video shooters of all types.
Last edited:
dust'n the callipygous
Well-known member
yeah dude, this seems a little too personal. film school doesn't make you a good filmmaker--talent does. in response to some of the things you're saying:
from the start, they mentioned that this was a test to see how DSLRs would hold up to film, knowing all along that film would be better. no mention of other cameras. they probably did this because DSLRs are hugely popular at the moment, and the image they produce for the price you pay is unprecedented.
why no RED? that's been done. RED is a proven system being used by industry professionals. it's already there. it has nothing to prove.
why not adapters? adapters are on their way out, for the most part, being replaced mostly by HDSLRs. they are cumbersome and eat light. imagine that helmet-cam shot in The Last 3 Minutes if HDLSRs weren't around. I'd like to see that guy run around with an EX3 and Letus Ultimate strapped to his head. you say adapters would have won hands down. well the test wasn't to declare an overall winner, it was to see how well each camera would hold up to film in different situations. anyway, an adapter on a camera would probably fare about the same as the DSLRs in terms of resolution, and it would be no-contest in the low-light testing. plus, how would they decide on the digital camera/adapter combination? there are too many choices on the market for any type of comprehensive test like this. and as far as the look goes, you can't test that with any kind of definitive results. that's where opinion comes into play.
i'm sure the test isn't entirely about marketing for zacuto. all of the guys behind it were genuinely interested in seeing the results of this test. but of course it's going to make money for them and drive business their way. they couldn't do the test otherwise.
all that said, i found the tests to be pretty insightful. they DSLRs did hold up better than i had anticipated. i still like the look of the gh1 (opinion). i think nikon would have an incredible camera with a better codec and 1080p (that low-light is incredible). i do find it kind of funny at the end when they were talking about the release of RAW on these cameras and saying it'll be over for film. this would have been a good time for a little interjection from RED. i'm glad i have a 7D--and these results are good enough to show that at the end of the day, it's not what you shoot with, it's how you shoot it.
from the start, they mentioned that this was a test to see how DSLRs would hold up to film, knowing all along that film would be better. no mention of other cameras. they probably did this because DSLRs are hugely popular at the moment, and the image they produce for the price you pay is unprecedented.
why no RED? that's been done. RED is a proven system being used by industry professionals. it's already there. it has nothing to prove.
why not adapters? adapters are on their way out, for the most part, being replaced mostly by HDSLRs. they are cumbersome and eat light. imagine that helmet-cam shot in The Last 3 Minutes if HDLSRs weren't around. I'd like to see that guy run around with an EX3 and Letus Ultimate strapped to his head. you say adapters would have won hands down. well the test wasn't to declare an overall winner, it was to see how well each camera would hold up to film in different situations. anyway, an adapter on a camera would probably fare about the same as the DSLRs in terms of resolution, and it would be no-contest in the low-light testing. plus, how would they decide on the digital camera/adapter combination? there are too many choices on the market for any type of comprehensive test like this. and as far as the look goes, you can't test that with any kind of definitive results. that's where opinion comes into play.
i'm sure the test isn't entirely about marketing for zacuto. all of the guys behind it were genuinely interested in seeing the results of this test. but of course it's going to make money for them and drive business their way. they couldn't do the test otherwise.
all that said, i found the tests to be pretty insightful. they DSLRs did hold up better than i had anticipated. i still like the look of the gh1 (opinion). i think nikon would have an incredible camera with a better codec and 1080p (that low-light is incredible). i do find it kind of funny at the end when they were talking about the release of RAW on these cameras and saying it'll be over for film. this would have been a good time for a little interjection from RED. i'm glad i have a 7D--and these results are good enough to show that at the end of the day, it's not what you shoot with, it's how you shoot it.
I don't want to come out as defending all of his positions, or even most, but here I think you're taking up a weak position: it's not so much what he thinks looks best but what his audience thinks looks best, or "filmic". No, there is nothing particularly special about 24FPS, except that it's been the "quality" standard frame rate for a long time for our audiences. I agree that it is because of what you said that it still retains that "best quality frame rate" aspect; my disagreement is with the idea that someone holding that "24 FPS is good for XYZ" is somehow misguided or not 'open minded' enough. It can be a very pragmatic belief to hold, especially because it can give you extra room to work with speed on 24/30/60 FPS cameras without having to sacrifice intra/inter-frame quality for the 5/6 and 4/10 speed rates (compared to 1/1 and 1/2 with 30FPS).
Ultimately, we're making products for audiences, right? Even if there's no technical reason (as he stated) that 24FPS is the best, there's still subjective reasons to appreciate it highly, and if those reasons are widely shared...
- Status